←back to thread

Beginning 1 September, we will need to geoblock Mississippi IPs

(dw-news.dreamwidth.org)
295 points AndrewDucker | 2 comments | 27 Aug 25 20:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
BrenBarn ◴[28 Aug 25 04:07 UTC] No.45048272[source]▶
Our legal system is a shambles that is clearly not prepared to handle this kind of thing, even setting aside the situation with the supreme court. It's become clear that the "shadow law" of simply passing unconstitutional statutes, filing frivilous lawsuits, etc., is operating independently of the real legal system moves too slowly and does not have adequate mechanisms to prevent what is essentially a DDoS attack. All justice is delayed and so all justice is denied.
replies(4): >>45049243 #>>45049638 #>>45051988 #>>45053131 #
eviks ◴[28 Aug 25 08:01 UTC] No.45049638[source]▶
> passing unconstitutional statutes > independently of the real legal system

The former is literally the real legal system, nothing shadow about it. Shadow would be some hidden deal to drop charges or something.

It's also not DDOS when a huge part of what you call "real" is exactly the same, so not unwillingly overloaded but willingly complicit.

replies(1): >>45049939 #
dudefeliciano ◴[28 Aug 25 08:53 UTC] No.45049939[source]▶
the real legal system is slow by design, to carefully review cases and ensure fairness. It should also be based on good faith. The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals (as trump is doing). Even when he fails, the process becomes the punishment for the opposing side (journalists, political opponents...). When he wins, he wins.
replies(4): >>45050094 #>>45052009 #>>45053170 #>>45055944 #
lelanthran ◴[28 Aug 25 19:19 UTC] No.45055944[source]▶
> the real legal system is slow by design, to carefully review cases and ensure fairness. It should also be based on good faith.

It isn't, and it isn't designed to be based on good faith or good faith actors.

replies(1): >>45056319 #
dudefeliciano ◴[28 Aug 25 19:52 UTC] No.45056319[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith#Law

there are many many resources online you can find on the matter

replies(1): >>45056818 #
lelanthran ◴[28 Aug 25 20:43 UTC] No.45056818[source]▶
That is specifically limited to contract law (a subset of civil law) which is quite distinct from criminal law.

Contract law requires many things, including "a meeting of minds"; that does not imply that all civil lawsuits and criminal hearings require "a meeting of minds".

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law)

There are many resources online you can find on the matter.

replies(1): >>45057177 #
1. dudefeliciano ◴[28 Aug 25 21:21 UTC] No.45057177[source]▶
> That is specifically limited to contract law

That is false, and the wiki paragraph does not say that

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11

> quite distinct from criminal law.

Trumps frivolous lawsuits have been civil matters, which is obviouos because private persons do not file criminal lawsuits, prosecutors do that.

replies(1): >>45061239 #
2. lelanthran ◴[29 Aug 25 07:30 UTC] No.45061239[source]▶
> That is false, and the wiki paragraph does not say that

Are you sure? This is the first sentence of my link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law)

> In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract.

This is the first sentence of your original link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith#Law

> In law, bona fides denotes the mental and moral states of honesty and conviction regarding either the truth or the falsity of a proposition, or of a body of opinion;

There is nothing in there that supports the assertion:

> It [the legal system] should also be based on good faith.

Any legal system based on good faith will fall over in its very first year of operation. They are usually designed to be resilient to bad faith actors. The problem (which you seem to be alluding to) is that, by design, the system errs on the side of caution.

In order to actually be punished for barratry, for example, there needs to be evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt as to the bad-faith intention and the system will not proceed with punitive measures.

And that's just for barratry - the other sins that people perpetrate on the system have equally cautionary consequential actions taken.